It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete.
President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship
I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.
I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.
Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?
The problem is less Congress than it was previous rulings on citizenship. That's what we need to do first; have it so the Supreme Court rules that anchor babies are not constitutionally protected.
Maybe you should study some American history. Birthright citizenship has been recognized for hundreds of years and by great men such as James Madison. We should discard it because white men are afraid of losing their political influence. If the Supreme Court turns this aside then no one including you is a American citizen.
Maybe you should study history because for the longest time, there was no such things as legal or illegal aliens. And if you studied history, you would realize that the amendment was not written so that anybody that could sneak into this country could have a child with a guaranteed citizenship.
The amendment was written for decedents of slaves, and that's all it was written for.
You are a typical Trump supporter. Stupid. Birthright citizenship has been a part of this country decades before the 14th Amendment.
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
- James Madison 1798
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2: James Madison, House of Representatives
"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United states’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth–natural born citizens."
-John Bingham
This passage from the debate itself.
Mr. COWAN. I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubetdly.
[…]
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. COWAN. I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603
James Ho makes the obvious statement.
"I would submit that the plain meaning of “subject to jurisdiction” is rather straightforward. It simply means that one must have a duty to obey U.S. law. When a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law, that person is required to obey the orders of that court. When a company is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a government agency, that company is required to obey the regulations promulgated by that agency. The meaning of the phrase is simple: One is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another whenever one is obliged to obey the laws of another. Simply put, the test is obedience, not allegiance.
It is also worth observing that, if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only children born to citizens are guaranteed birthright citizenship—with a simple proviso to address the descendants of slaves. But instead, they chose the language of jurisdiction, not citizenship. And that decision deserves respect.
Of course, the phrase “subject to jurisdiction” must mean something. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose. Under the interpretation I put forth, it does serve a purpose. The “jurisdiction” requirement excludes only those individuals who are not required to obey U.S. law. This concept—like much of early U.S. law—derives from English common law. Under the common law, neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers are legally required to obey our law. They enjoy diplomatic immunity or combatant immunity from our laws. As a result, their U.S.-born offspring are not entitled to birthright citizenship.
This understanding is also confirmed by the congressional debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment. Members of the 39th Congress debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship—but no one disputed the amendment’s meaning. In fact, opponents of the amendment conceded—indeed, they warned—that the language of the Citizenship Clause would guarantee citizenship to the children of those who “owe [the United States] no allegiance.” And supporters of the amendment agreed that only members of Indian tribes, ambassadors, foreign ministers and others who are not “subject to [our laws]” would fall outside the guarantee of birthright citizenship."
